« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
Suskind's Latest: Al Qaeda, Saddam and a Can of Pork and Beans
Iraq Intelligence Letter Associating Al Qaeda with Iraq Was White House Contrivance
When it rains it pours. In the immediate wake of an apparent suicide of Dr. Bruce Ivins in the face of what increasing looks like the FBI's attempts to frame him as the government's scapegoat for the 2001 Anthrax Scare, evidence is now being presented by journalist and author Ron Suskind
that in 2003 the White House promoted a forged letter linking Saddam
Hussein to Al Qaeda as part of its concerted effort to bamboozle the
American people into supporting their conjured neocon war against Iraq.
The forgery appeared as a follow-up to the now infamous "Feith Memo," a 16-page "top secret" intelligence document "leaked" to the Weekly Standard purportedly detailing evidence of Saddam's complicity with terrorist activities perpetrated by al Qaeda.
Feith's notorious allegations, produced by the Pentagon's Office of Special Plans, were summarized and published in the Weekly Standard in an equally notorious article, "Case Closed" that served to prop-up the latest casus belli in a string of lies, including the "Niger Yellowcake Forgery,"
that were aggressively exploited by Vice President Richard Cheney in
order to promote what has now turned into the Administration's regional
war in the Middle East.
When it all folds together,
the unavoidable conclusion -- that Congress nevertheless persists in
avoiding -- is that the Bush/Cheney Administration is guilty of war
crimes of the highest order.
Book Says White House Ordered ForgeryAs we discussed above, this was apparently all part of an organized effort to provide false intelligence linking Saddam Hussein with al-Qaeda and Osama ben Laden. The centerpiece of the scam was the infamous "leak" of a "top secret" memo written by Douglas Feith, the neoconservative head of the Pentagon's Office of Special Plans, a classical piece of agitprop now known as "The Feith Memo."
By MIKE ALLEN | 8/4/08 11:23 PM EST
A new book by the author Ron Suskind claims that the White House ordered the CIA to forge a back-dated, handwritten letter from the head of Iraqi intelligence to Saddam Hussein.
Suskind writes in “The Way of the World,” to be published Tuesday, that the alleged forgery – adamantly denied by the White House – was designed to portray a false link between Hussein’s regime and al Qaeda as a justification for the Iraq war.
The author also claims that the Bush administration had information from a top Iraqi intelligence official “that there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq – intelligence they received in plenty of time to stop an invasion.”
The letter’s existence has been reported before, and it had been written about as if it were genuine. It was passed in Baghdad to a reporter for The (London) Sunday Telegraph who wrote about it on the front page of Dec. 14, 2003, under the headline, “Terrorist behind September 11 strike ‘was trained by Saddam.’”
The Telegraph story by Con Coughlin (which, coincidentally, ran the day Hussein was captured in his “spider hole”) was touted in the U.S. media by supporters of the war, and he was interviewed on NBC's "Meet the Press."
"Over the next few days, the Habbush letter continued to be featured prominently in the United States and across the globe," Suskind writes. "Fox's Bill O'Reilly trumpeted the story Sunday night on 'The O'Reilly Factor,' talking breathlessly about details of the story and exhorting, 'Now, if this is true, that blows the lid off al Qaeda—Saddam.'" According to Suskind, the administration had been in contact with the director of the Iraqi intelligence service in the last years of Hussein’s regime, Tahir Jalil Habbush al-Tikriti.
“The White House had concocted a fake letter from Habbush to Saddam, backdated to July 1, 2001,” Suskind writes. “It said that 9/11 ringleader Mohammad Atta had actually trained for his mission in Iraq – thus showing, finally, that there was an operational link between Saddam and al Qaeda, something the Vice President’s Office had been pressing CIA to prove since 9/11 as a justification to invade Iraq. There is no link.”
Miraculously, as they say, the Feith Memo fell into the hands of none other than the Weekly Standard, the bastion of neoconservative journals founded by William Kristol, and was reported in an article entitled "Case Closed," by the Standard's Stephen F. Hayes.
The 16-page memo detailed years of so-called attempts to coordinate terrorist activities between Iraq and al-Qaeda, intelligence that now has been proved false and made up from whole cloth.
Richard Cheney then began to give personal interviews promoting the most recent "evidence" of Iraq and al Qaeda complicity in planning terrorist operations, "evidence" that was completely contrived as ordered up by him personally. Here is one example:
In today's [1/27/04] Washington Post, Dana Milbank reported that "Vice President Cheney . . . in an interview this month with the Rocky Mountain News, recommended as the 'best source of information' an article in The Weekly Standard magazine detailing a relationship between Hussein and al Qaeda based on leaked classified information." [cf. Weekly Standard, "Case Closed", by Stephen F. Hayes; Editor's Note of 01/27/04.]Only a few weeks later, the hoopla that followed the Feith Memo was capped by the forged letter from the Iraqi chief of intelligence to Saddam Hussein, the missive now under examination by Ron Suskind. Despite confrontation from the media's left-bank, Cheney continued for months in the controlled mainstream media to arrogantly promote the very lies that had been discredited by the independent press. It was all a can of pork and beans.
Why haven't they been impeached? Ask Kafka.














Comments (10)
I've been steadfastly against impeachment, feeling that it would be politically counter-productive.
But Jesus H. Christ! You're getting only half of Suskind's story, actually. The other half is inside reporting revealing that Bush, Cheney, et al., knew with considerable confidence that there were no WMDs in Iraq *before* we went to war.
And then, afterward, they concocted these forgeries and fakes . . . incidentally violating a law that prevents the CIA from being used to disseminate domestic propaganda.
These are high crimes and misdemeanors. Of that I don't have much doubt. The only really compelling reason I can see not to impeach the bastards, is that it's late in the second term.
I don't know exactly what ought to be done. But I certainly think Democrats ought to say publicly that these allegations *merit* impeachment if they are proven to be true. When CIA is used to plant domestic disinformation, we really cannot shrug and say "yeah, well, everyone already knows these guys are liars." We need a stronger response.
August 5, 2008 7:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
The Democrats can't say the allegations *merit* impeachment, and then not impeach. That is credibility-destroying for their cause, and gives ammo to Republican charges of "theatrics," not to mention any investigation short of one authorized
by an impeachment committee will be labelled a "fishing expedition" anyway.
In my eyes, they have no choice but to impeach. That may itself be the Republican strategy- to maneuver the Democrats into a position where they either impeach or lose credibility. In effect they are being dared to impeach. The Dems need to take the Republicans up on this. The Republicans will not survive an impeachment trial.
August 5, 2008 10:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
You're right. After hearing the NPR interview with Suskind, I'm seeing things through a haze of anger, and my ideas are muddled.
I guess this is what I think: We need to figure out whether it's possible to prove the most explosive allegation, about the forged document. I don't doubt that the allegation is true. The WH is saying it "can't be verified" -- which means it's true. But is it going to be possible to follow the trail? E.g., someone needs to ask Suskind, "Suppose your off-the-record sources were released from the threat of prosecution for leaking classfied info. If they were released, say, by a congressional subpoena, would they be willing to testify on the record?"
If so, there needs to be an impeachment committee. I don't like the idea -- I hate the idea of impeaching two presidents in a row -- it's a terrible precedent. But if there's a large, straightforward crime sitting out there in broad daylight, there comes a point where you can't avoid it.
August 5, 2008 11:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
Okay, correction. Apparently there *are* already CIA officers on the record in Suskind's book confirming the existence of the forged letter.
So, I'm sorry, that's it for me. In my opinion, someone needs to get his ass impeached.
August 5, 2008 11:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
Also something to bear in mind:
1) Much of this has been part of the public record for a long time. Google Vincent Cannistraro, or Michael Ledeen and see what comes up. Seymour Hersh would be the only American reporter of note on this, aside from "conspiracy theory" blogs.
2) The Democratic party, at the highest levels, is complicit in this. We cannot expect impeachment or prosecution of any kind.
August 5, 2008 9:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Michael Ledeen -- right, yellowcake. I read Josh on that back in the day. But to me, Suskind's allegations come a lot closer to a smoking gun. Because
1) The evidence seems stronger.
2) In this case, it's completely clear that the people being fooled are not primarily foreign governments, but rather US voters.
3) I don't see the fingerprints of Democratic collaboration here. I see it in the case of FISA. But in this case they'd have to go to the intelligence committees and say, "Uh, we're going to use the CIA to spread some domestic disinformation that might help us beat you in 2004. You guys cool with that?"
I agree with the good Father below, however, that impeachment is unlikely at this point. I hope we can come up with some robust alternatives.
August 5, 2008 11:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're right, the Suskind evidence is more straightforward and smoking-gun-ish. As for complicity, you're also right, I don't think the Democratic complicity is as public as the FISA scandal. However, most of the WMD madness has been kept more hush hush.
August 6, 2008 5:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
I agree completely with you, re the possibility of provability. As for the terrible precedent- If there is no impeachment of a president who is alleged to have committed crimes of this magnitude, then that is an even worse precedent than impeaching a hundred consecutive Presidents.
It raises yet another issue- If Bush is impeached, Cheney would have to be, too. So that would be THREE Presidents sucessively impeached.
For certain, it will weaken the Executive Branch.
I wonder if you have any thoughts on how, for example, many of the Founders, and later Constitutional thinkers, would have seen this development. For example, John Calhoun wanted two concurrent Presidents, each with veto power over the other, from the North and South. (That is the most flamboyant example I could think of- but I don't think it should be dismissed out hand.)
August 5, 2008 11:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
I desperately want to see the executive branch weakened (but it ain't gonna happen this way). Enough of the Founders wanted an executive subject to the will of Congress and the States that they succeeded in institutionalizing the Electoral College, which was originally made up of electors selected by the individual states, for selecting the executive in the Constitution. The president was originally given exactly the power that Congress wanted him to have, but subsequent Supreme Courts (appointed by the executive) and negligent Congresses have given the exec more and more power.
There is no political reality that will result in impeachment for Bush and Cheney. What is possible, if enough Dems wind up in office, is something like the truth and reconciliation commssions in South Africa. Perps confess their misdeeds in return for not facing harsh sentences.
What I'd really like to see is for the US to become signatories to the International Criminal Court, and then submit Bush Administration officials to any war crimes prosecutions that may ensue.
Impeachment proceedings will just result in blanket pardons before Bush leaves office - that may happen anyway without impeachment. But Presidential pardons won't mean squat in the face of ICC proceedings.
August 5, 2008 11:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Perhaps Congressional censure is an option?
That would require Democrats to get some backbone. Given their recent performance on FISA that seems like a VERY remote possibility.
Basically, it is a known existence of such information that drives recent opponents of the FISA "compromise" to distraction. We know that it is only the tip of the iceberg.
August 5, 2008 10:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Post a Comment